Preliminary Evaluation of Pellet and Tubifex Feed Treatments on Pangasius and Water Spinach Growth in a Bucket-Based Aquaponic System (Budikdamber)

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26877/asset.v8i4.3728

Keywords:

Aquaponics, Ipomoea aquatica, pangasius, tubifex, urban farming

Abstract

Bucket-based aquaponics offers a low-cost option for integrated fish and vegetable production, but treatment-level observations require cautious interpretation. This 43-day preliminary study descriptively evaluated commercial pellets (P1), a 1:1 pellet–Tubifex combination (P2), and Tubifex (P3) in separate 80-L Pangasius–water spinach systems. Recorded fish length and weight gains were highest numerically in P3 (10.5 cm; 10.2 g), whereas P2 produced the largest water-spinach height, leaf count, and leaf width (28 cm; 36; 1.7 cm). Mean pH ranged from 7.85 to 7.89, while recorded temperatures were high (36.8–37.8 °C). Because each treatment was represented by one bucket, results were analyzed descriptively. The observations do not establish treatment superiority or feed efficiency; confirmatory research requires replicated systems, quantified feed intake, and comprehensive water-quality monitoring.

Author Biographies

  • Atip Nurwahyunani, Universitas Persatuan Guru Republik Indonesia Semarang

    Doctoral Program in Science Education, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia

    Faculty of Mathematics, Natural Sciences, and Information Technology Education, Universitas PGRI Semarang, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia

  • Wiwi Isnaeni, Universitas Negeri Semarang

    Doctoral Program in Science Education, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia

  • Siti Alimah, Universitas Negeri Semarang

    Doctoral Program in Science Education, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia

  • Aditya Marianti, Universitas Negeri Semarang

    Doctoral Program in Science Education, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia

References

[1] Jansen L, Keesman KJ. Exploration of efficient water, energy and nutrient use in aquaponics systems in northern latitudes. Cleaner Circ Bioecon. 2022;2:100012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clcb.2022.100012.

[2] Roy K, Kajgrová L, Mráz J. TILAFeed: A bio-based inventory for circular nutrients management and achieving bioeconomy in future aquaponics. New Biotechnol. 2022;70:9-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2022.04.002.

[3] Zhu Z, Yogev U, Keesman KJ, Gross A. Promoting circular economy: Comparison of novel coupled aquaponics with anaerobic digestion and conventional aquaponic systems on nutrient dynamics and sustainability. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2024;208:107716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107716.

[4] Zappernick N, Nedunuri KV, Islam KR, Khanal S, Worley T, Laki SL, et al. Techno-economic analysis of a recirculating tilapia-lettuce aquaponics system. J Clean Prod. 2022;365:132753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132753.

[5] Cerozi BS, Arlotta CG, Richardson ML. Fish effluent as a source of water and nutrients for sustainable urban agriculture. Agriculture. 2022;12(12):1975. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12121975.

[6] Pinho SM, David LH, Garcia F, Keesman KJ, Portella MC, Goddek S. South American fish species suitable for aquaponics: A review. Aquac Int. 2021;29:1427-1449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-021-00674-w.

[7] Andriani Y, Zahidah, Dhahiyat Y, Hamdani H, Subhan U. Growth of juvenile striped catfish (Pangasius hypophthalmus) and water quality in aquaponics system. Asian J Fish Aquat Res. 2019;5(2):1-7. https://doi.org/10.9734/AJFAR/2019/v5i230071.

[8] Hu Z, Lee JW, Chandran K, Kim S, Brotto AC, Khanal SK. Effect of plant species on nitrogen recovery in aquaponics. Bioresour Technol. 2015;188:92-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.01.013.

[9] Khalil S, Panda P, Ghadamgahi F, Rosberg A, Vetukuri RR. Comparison of two commercial recirculated aquacultural systems and their microbial potential in plant disease suppression. BMC Microbiol. 2021;21:205. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-021-02273-4.

[10] Vu NU, Pham TL, Tran TN, Nguyen THD, Le HM, Phan LT, et al. Optimized live feed regime significantly improves growth performance and survival rate for early life history stages of pangasius catfish (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus). Fishes. 2020;5(3):20. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes5030020.

[11] Amrullah, Wahidah, Khatimah K, Ardiansyah, Rosyida E, Taufik I. Evaluation of feed types based on growth performance, survival, hematology, and resistance in Celebes rainbow (Marosantherina ladigesi). Fish Aquat Sci. 2023;26(10):583-592. https://doi.org/10.47853/FAS.2023.e50.

[12] Subramanian R, et al. Integrated nutrient and feeding optimization strategies in recirculating aquaponics. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2025;9:1681782. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1681782.

[13] Martinez-Meingüer AM, et al. Effect of restricted feeding regimes on growth, lipid metabolism and stress-related genes in Nile tilapia cultured in a biofloc-aquaponic basil system. Aquac Int. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-026-02450-0.

[14] Bayır A, et al. Manipulation of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) diets with potassium diformate enhances lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) yield in aquaponics. Aquac Int. 2026;34:197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-026-02598-9.

[15] Justin AI, Kassam D, Sikawa DC. Water flow rate optimization in NFT aquaponics with pig-manure-enriched effluent: Impacts on lettuce growth and yield. Discov Agric. 2026;4:20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44279-026-00482-x.

[16] Kimera F, Sewilam H, Fouad WM, Suloma A. Sustainable production of Origanum syriacum L. using fish effluents improved plant growth, yield, and essential oil composition. Heliyon. 2021;7(3):e06423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06423.

[17] Goddek S, Delaide B, Mankasingh U, Ragnarsdottir KV, Jijakli H, Thorarinsdottir R. Challenges of sustainable and commercial aquaponics. Sustainability. 2015;7(4):4199-4224. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7044199.

[18] Somerville C, Cohen M, Pantanella E, Stankus A, Lovatelli A. Small-scale aquaponic food production: Integrated fish and plant farming. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2014.

[19] Yep B, Zheng Y. Aquaponic trends and challenges-A review. J Clean Prod. 2019;228:1586-1599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.290.

[20] Wongkiew S, Hu Z, Chandran K, Lee JW, Khanal SK. Nitrogen transformations in aquaponic systems: A review. Aquac Eng. 2017;76:9-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2017.01.004.

[21] Palm HW, et al. Towards commercial aquaponics: A review of systems, designs, scales and nomenclature. Aquac Int. 2018;26(3):813-842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-018-0249-z.

[22] Tyson RV, Treadwell DD, Simonne EH. Opportunities and challenges to sustainability in aquaponic systems. HortTechnology. 2011;21(1):6-13. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.21.1.6.

[23] Delaide B, Delhaye G, Dermience M, Gott J, Soyeurt H, Jijakli MH. Plant and fish production performance, nutrient mass balances, energy and water use of the PAFF Box, a small-scale aquaponic system. Aquac Eng. 2017;78:130-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2017.06.002.

[24] Yang T, Kim HJ. Effects of hydraulic loading rate on spatial and temporal water quality characteristics and crop growth and yield in aquaponic systems. Horticulturae. 2020;6(1):9. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6010009.

[25] Endut A, Jusoh A, Ali N, Wan Nik WB, Hassan A. A study on the optimal hydraulic loading rate and plant ratios in recirculation aquaponic system. Bioresour Technol. 2010;101(5):1511-1517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.09.040.

Downloads

Published

2026-09-24

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 4 (2026): August-October

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Advance Sustainable Science Engineering and Technology

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.